Reading test - Utilitarianism

Question 1

Utilitarianism

Answer 1

Utilitarianism:
- emphasis greatest good for greatest number of people

• suggests right course of action is the one that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes suffering

Objections:
- Bentham’s idea of utility offers one such common currency. But is it possible to translate all moral goods into a single currency of value without losing something in the translation?

• utilitarianism’s approach of measuring all moral goods on a single scale (like happiness or money) is problematic because some values, such as human life, dignity, and justice, cannot be adequately captured or compared with other things

Question 2

Shakespeare vs The Simpsons

Answer 2

Mills Higher Pleasure Test
- mill argues some pleasures are superior to others

• pleasures associated with “higher faculties” (intellect, moral reasoning, aesthetics) are more fulfilling than basic physical satisfaction
• sandel challenges mills theory through a classroom experiment, students overwhelmingly found simpsons more pleasurable, but still consider Shakespeare to offer the higher pleasure

Question 3

Philosophies of Shakespeare vs Simpsons

Answer 3

Utilitarianism (Bentham vs Mill)
- bentham’s utilitarianism is focused on greatest good for greatest number

• mill’s utilitarianism, while still focused on greatest good, incorporates idea of higher pleasures (intellectual, moral) vs lower pleasures (physical) higher pleasures are considered more valuable

Question 4

St Annes Girl

Answer 4

• traditional moral grounds vs utilitarian logic
• debate on if we should relax colleges rules against overnight male guests in women’s rooms
• traditionalists oppose this on moral grounds, arguing it is immoral for unmarried women to spend the night w/men
• traditionalists then translated their argument into utilitarian terms, focusing on practical consequences (increased cost for hot water, mattress replacements)
• reformers proposed a compromise, that women could have up to 3 male guests each week, with fee to cover extra costs
• compromise then backfired when Guardian headline read “St. Anne Girls, fifty pence a night” highlighting the absurdity of reducing moral values to a financial transaction
• sandel uses this example to highlight the tension between moral ideals & utilitarian calculations

Question 5

Pain of Pay

Answer 5

• Edward Thorndike conducted a survey asking people how much they would need to be paid to ensure various unpleasant experiences (ex. tooth pulled, eating earthworm)
• thorndike believed that the findings would support the idea that all desires could be quantified and compared on a single scale of utility, aligning w/ utilitarianism
• instead, the results showed the absurdity of comparing vastly different types of suffering
• for example, some people disagreed more with living on a farm than eating a earthworm
• it also found that certain people would not take any amount of money to endure certain actions, such as killing a cat
• this indicates hat some experiences are so morally repugnant they cannot be measured by a simple cost-benefit analysis
• this is a clear limitation of the utilitarian approach that some experiences can be reduced to a single scale of utility

Question 6

A Discount for Seniors

Answer 6

• EPA presented a cost benefit analysis that valued older peoples lives at 2.3$, significantly less than the value placed on younger lives
• this was based on a utilitarian approach, which argued that younger individuals have more years to live and thus more potential happiness to gain
• defenders of cost-benefit analysis argued that these kind of trade-offs are inevitable in society, as all decisions involve weighing lives against other goods
• for instance, when the U.S raised speed limits in the 1980s, economists found that the value of faster driving was 1.5 million per life lost
• utilitarians believe that placing a monetary value on human life is necessary, while critics argue such calculations reduce human life to a commodity
• the critique of utilitarianism here is the objection that human life and moral values cannot be reduced to a calculation, as the possess intrinsic worth that exceeds economic measures

Question 7

Exploding Gas Tanks

Answer 7

• in 1970s Ford sold the Pinto, a car with dangerous fuel tank, prone to explosion in rear-end collisions
• after 500 deaths, it was revealed that Ford had conducted a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the benefits of fixing the design (saving lives and preventing injury) did not outweigh costs of fix
• ford assigned a monetary value of 200k per life lost
• this decision led to moral outrage and critics of the utilitarian approach argue that reducing human life to a monetary value is inefficient, as it does not account for full human experience and intrinsic value of life itself
• core philosophical concept here is utilitarianism, that all actions should be judged by their outcomes, in terms of maximizing happiness. in this case, weighing the costs of preventing deaths vs benefits of a safer car

Question 8

Throwing Christians to Lions

Answer 8

• throwing christians to lions critiques the utilitarian approach to morality
• in this scenario, a utilitarian would weigh the pain of the Christian being devoured by lions against the pleasure of the cheering spectators, and if the collective pleasure of the crowd outweighs the individual suffering, the action might seem morally justified
• this raises the question of whether utilitarianism ignores the moral wrongness of causing suffering for entertainment, suggesting moral values cannot be fully captured in a cost-benefit analysis of pleasure & pain

Question 9

The City of Happiness

Answer 9

• presents a moral dilemma that discusses the utilitarian issue of sacrificing one person for the greater good
• involves a child who must endure terrible suffering in order for the city to live in happiness and propserity
• is it morally acceptable for the well being to be build upon the suffering of a innocent child? from a utilitarian perspective, the suffering could be justified if it leads to greater happiness for many others
• critics of utilitarianism argue human rights should never be violated, regardless of the joy it brings to others
• some moral principles – such as the inherent rights of individuals should never be sacrificed